'Junia . . . Outstanding
among the Apostles' (Romans 16:7) (1)

by Bernadette Brooten

Bernadette Brooten was at the time a Ph. D. candidate at Harvard University
in the field of New Testament and was writing a dissertation on Women in
Early Church Office and Within the Organizational Structures of the
Synagogue. Ms. Brooten also studied theology for three years at the
University of Tuebingen in West Germany.

Greet Andronicus and Junia . . . who are outstanding among the
apostles (Romans 16:7): To be an apostle is something great. But to be
outstanding among the apostlesjust think what a wonderful song of praise
that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous
actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was
even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.

John
Chrysostom (344/54-407)(2)

Also notable is the case of Junias or Junio, placed in the rank of the apostles
(Rom. 16, 7), with regard to whom one or another [exegete] raises the question
of whether it is a man.

Pontifical Biblical Commission (1976)(3)

What
a striking contrast! The exegesis of Romans 16:7 has practically reversed.
Whereas for John Chrysostom the apostle addressed by Paul is a woman by the
name of Junia, for almost all modern scholars it is a man, Junias,
whom Paul is greeting. The Biblical Commission is quite right in saying
that only one or another exegete questions the prevailing view that
the person named is a man. Most Romans commentators do not seem to be even
aware of the possibility that the person could be a woman, and virtually all
modern biblical translations have Junias (m.) rather than Junia
(f.).

It
was not always this way. John Chrysostom was not alone in the ancient church in
taking the name to be feminine. The earliest commentator on Romans 16:7, Origen
of Alexandria (e. 185-253/54), took the name to be feminine (Junta or
Julia, which is a textual variant),(4) as did Jerome (340/50-419/20),(5)
Hatto of Vercelli (924-961),(6) Theophylact (c.1050-c.1108),(70 and Peter
Abelard (1079-1142).(8) In fact, to the best of my knowledge, no commentator on
the text until Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine.
Without commenting on his departure from previous commentators, Aegidius simply
referred to the two persons mentioned in Romans 16:7 as these honorable
men (viri).(9) Aegidius noted that there were two variant readings for
the second name: Juniam and Juliam (accusative in the verse). He
preferred the reading Juliam and took it to be masculine. Thus we see
that even Juliam, which modern scholars would take to be clearly
feminine, has been considered masculine in the context of the title
apostle.

If
Aegidius started the ball rolling, it really picked up momentum in the
Reformation period. The commentary which Martin Luther heavily relied upon,
that by Father Stapulensis (Paris, 1512, p.99b), took the accusative
IOUNIAN to be Junias (m.). Luthers lecture on Romans
(1515/1516: Weimarer Ausgabe 56, p. 150) followed Faber Stapulensis on
this and other points. Through Luther the Junias interpretation was
assured of a broad exposure for centuries to come. In each of the succeeding
centuries the Junias hypothesis gained new adherents and the argument
was expanded. To make the Junias interpretation more plausible, some
commentators suggested that it was a short form of the Latin
Junianus, Junianius, Junilius or even Junius. This short
form hypothesis is the prevailing view in modern scholarship.

The
proponents of the new Junias hypothesis were, however, by no means left
unchallenged. In 1698, for example, Johannes Drusius (in the Critici Sacri,
Amsterdam, 1698, Vol. VII, p. 930) patiently tried to remind his colleagues
that Junia was the feminine counterpart of Junius, just as
Prisca was of Priscus, and Julia was of Julius.
Christian Wilhelm Bose, in his doctoral dissertation Andronicum et
Juniam (Leipzig, 1742, p. 5), questioned that Junia/s is a short
form of anything. If that be true, he pondered, then one might just as easily
argue that Andronicus is a short form of Andronicianus! In our
century, the most notable protester against the Junias hypothesis has
been M.-J. Lagrange (Paris, 1916; sixth ed. 1950, p. 366). His reason is a
conservative one: because the abbreviation Junias is unattested, it is
more prudent to stick to the feminine Junia. Unlike many of
his Protestant colleagues, Lagrange was aware of the Patristic exegesis on this
point. Precisely because the Church Fathers took the name to be feminine,
Catholic exegetes of the past were generally slower to accept the innovation of
Junias. But by now commentators of all confessions take IOUNIAN to
be Junias.

What
reasons have commentators given for this change? The answer is simple: a woman
could not have been an apostle. Because a woman could not have been an apostle,
the woman who is here called apostle could not have been a woman

What
can a modern philologist say about Junias? Just this: it is unattested.
To date not a single Latin or Greek inscription, not a single reference in
ancient literature has been cited by any of the proponents of the Junias
hypothesis. My own search for an attestation has also proved fruitless.
This means that we do not have a single shred of evidence that the name
Junias ever existed. Nor is it plausible to argue that it is just
coincidental that Junias is unattested since the long forms
Junianus. Junianius, Junilius, and Junius are common enough. It
is true that Greek names could have abbreviated forms ending in -as
(e.g., Artemas for Artemidoros); such names are called
hypocoristica (terms of endearment or diminutives, e.g., Johnny for
John, or Eddie for Edward). Latin hypocoristica, however, are usually formed by
lengthening the name (e.g., Priscilla for Prisca) rather than by
shortening it, as in Greek. The Junias hypothesis presupposes that Latin
names were regularly abbreviated in the Greek fashion, which is not the case.
The feminine Junia, by contrast, is a common name in both Greek and
Latin inscriptions and literature. In short, literally all of the philological
evidence points to the feminine Junia.

What
does it mean that Junia and Andronicus were apostles? Was the apostolic charge
not limited to the Twelve? New Testament usage varies on this point. Luke, for
example, placed great emphasis on the twelve apostles. In fact,
with one exception (Acts 14:4, 14: both Paul and Barnabas are called
apostles), Luke does not honor Paul with the title
apostle. Paul on the other hand, never uses the term the
twelve apostles. He himself claimed to be an apostle, though he was not
one of the Twelve, and he also called others, such as James the brother of the
Lord (Galatians 1:19, cf. 1Corinthians 15:7), apostle. This does
not mean that Paul used apostle in an unrestricted, loose sense.
Precisely because of the seriousness with which he defends his own claim to
apostleship (he says that he received his call from Christ himself: Galatians
1:1, 11f.; 1Corinthians 9:1), we must assume that he recognized others as
apostles only when he was convinced that their own apostolic charge had also
come from the risen Lord (cf. 1Corinthians 15, 7 the risen Lord was seen by all
the apostles). For Paul the category apostle; was perhaps of even
greater import than for other New Testament writers because it concerned
authority in the church of his own day and did not refer to a closed circle of
persons from the past, i.e., a restricted number which could not be repeated.

From
this and from Pauls description of his own apostolic work in his letters,
we can assume that the apostles Junia and Andronicus were persons of great
authority in the early Christian community, that they were probably missonaries
and founders of churches, and that, just as with Paul, their apostleship had
begun with a vision of the risen Lord and the charge to become apostles of
Christ.

In
light of Romans 16:7 then, the assertion that Jesus did not entrust the
apostolic charge to women must be revised. The implications for women
priests should be self-evident. If the first century Junia could be an apostle,
it is hard to see how her twentieth century counterpart should not be allowed
to become even a priest.

Notes

1.
The following comments summarize briefly the results of a comprehensive study
of the history of interpretation of Romans 16:7 and of the inscriptional
evidence for the name IOUNIAN. The reader interested in more complete
documentation is referred to that study, which will be published in the near
future.